Template talk:Non-free proposed architecture

Kaldari's edit of 2 August 2012

This change was incorrect. Images of copyright buildings in non-FoP countries are not classified as Free-Content.

the relevant phrase in the definition at http://freedomdefined.org/ could hardly be clearer: There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.

The unfortunate consequence of the 2 August edit is to give the misleading impression that our long established policy on non-free images has changed.

I personally would welcome a change to our policy on such images, for example a special, less restrictive, EDP for images of buildings, if someone were to raise the issue in a policy proposal in the normal way. 9carney (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It has been, see the completed discussion at Template talk:FoP-USonly. In short, it is long established policy at Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights that only United States copyright ultimately matters on the English Wikipedia, making non-US FoP situations irrelevant. The template was never created with any consensus and was before recent changes fundamentally flawed. If it was the case "that our long established policy on non-free images" cared about the country of origin then we couldn't upload such images as non-free either, since "fair use" is a US concept and is not necessarily recognized in other countries. The commentary in the old version of the template which linked standards relating to the country of origin were factually inaccurate - there is no reference to the country of origin in this documentation, in fact cross-border copyright issues are not mentioned at all. The country of origin concept exists in Commons' policy, not English Wikipedia policy.

As for the quote "There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied", on Commons there are images which, due to complex quirks in copyright law, are free in the US, free in the country of origin, but non-free in one or more other countries. The logic of the way that quote is being interpreted is that an image has to be free everywhere on Earth, which is clearly impractical to enforce and is above the standards of Commons let alone this project, and so I think it is fair to conclude that that interpretation is not the right one. Looking at the documentation, that quote is only talking about copying and not other freedoms, and with this context I interpret it to mean that the copyright holder cannot impose unreasonable conditions on how an image can be copied, which would extend to location.

In any case, the revert has caused this template to contradict the now long established and in use Template:FoP-USonly, and therefore I'm reverting it back barring any new consensus for these changes, as leaving it as it is will cause confusion. CT Cooper · talk 23:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 30 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) --Killarnee (T•1•2) 14:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Template:Non-free architectural work → Template:Non-free proposed architecture – Summary: To make its purpose more clear. This template has a long history, which I'll detail below.

The template started off as a fair-use template for photographs of buildings in countries without freedom of panorama, such as the Burj Khalifa. However, a 2012 RfC decided that such images would be allowed on the English Wikipedia as freely licensed in the United States due to lex loci protectionis. Existing photos with this template were migrated under {{FoP-USonly}} when possible (e.g. the uploader took the photo and agreed to a free license) and deleted otherwise per WP:NFCC#1. As a result this template was obsolete, so I repurposed it for proposed works which haven't been built yet, which obviously don't have free images available. In hindsight, that was not the best idea and I should have created it at a clearer title from the start, as many people are still constantly misusing it for architectural works that exist or that used to exist (which may be kept under {{non-free historic image}} if appropriate).

I'd like to leave in its place a pseudo-disambiguation that warns people not to use this template and to choose from the following three options (depending on the situation): 1) {{non-free proposed architecture}}; 2) {{FoP-USonly}} with appropriate free license; 3) {{non-free historic image}} (or maybe we could create a new template specifically for destroyed buildings). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Support and create a dedicated template for destroyed building. buidhe 05:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.